Origins of the Universe

[Garnier Fructis]

And that doesn't apply to the physical world at all now does it?

We have similar statements in physics such as the non-existence of perpetual motion machines, or the various no-go theorems of quantum mechanics.

So it really comes down to how far you want to retreat into 'yeah but we can't be 100% sure' territory.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Simply put...where did anything come from? I can wrap my head around existing things changing into something new, but I can't understand where things originated from. I'm talking about the most basic, trace elements (or whatever they are) that initially formed into the universe. Where did those things come from?

I chose to link the original post so we don't really get off topic. But I'm going to get off topic anyway.

The most basic, trace elements (or whatever they are) that initially formed into the universe... Where did those things come from?

This question suggests you're asking about the origin of existence, plainly. Your question goes so far back that it can't even guarantee classic matter isn't questionable. From an origin point like that, it's probably not possible to obtain an answer religiously or scientifically. And yes, even religion cannot count, because that's an endless hallway, so even if a being who actually had those answers answered you, they'd have to then account for their own ability to have such answers.

Such can answer could probably only come from the one thing that made itself before making existence, IF such a thing was.

Anyway, long story short, I highly suggest investing in an analog ideology of your personal choice or creation, rather than investing in an inarguable cult-like ideology claiming its justification is supreme simply because it increases the accuracy of human endeavor: Science.

The only real problems occur when someone takes an analog ideology too seriously. This includes the most popular cult-like one we're watching sweep over the world right now, known as science, which is also technically analog in the end. Thankfully, it hasn't had much results in it's attempts at conquest.

Religion > science.

[May90]

We have similar statements in physics such as the non-existence of perpetual motion machines, or the various no-go theorems of quantum mechanics.

So it really comes down to how far you want to retreat into 'yeah but we can't be 100% sure' territory.

The problem is, proving a non-existence of something is only possible with assumption that certain fact holds true. In math, it is assured by building the entirety of math on the basis of a set of axioms which are true by definition. In physics, while we also have axioms, those axioms are not physical facts, they are facts within out model - but our model does not necessarily describe the real world.

Non-existence of perpetual motion machines, in particular, isn't as much a meaningful statement, as a direct follow-up from the energy conservation law. We assume that the energy is conserved, hence perpetual motion machines cannot exist. On the other hand, we may one day discover a perpetual motion machine in our Universe generating energy literally out of nothing, and then we will have to reconsider the energy conservation law. Math doesn't have this problem, because it is self-contained, it only describes itself and not the world outside its scope.

[Garnier Fructis]

The problem is, proving a non-existence of something is only possible with assumption that certain fact holds true. In math, it is assured by building the entirety of math on the basis of a set of axioms which are true by definition. In physics, while we also have axioms, those axioms are not physical facts, they are facts within out model - but our model does not necessarily describe the real world.

Non-existence of perpetual motion machines, in particular, isn't as much a meaningful statement, as a direct follow-up from the energy conservation law. We assume that the energy is conserved, hence perpetual motion machines cannot exist. On the other hand, we may one day discover a perpetual motion machine in our Universe generating energy literally out of nothing, and then we will have to reconsider the energy conservation law. Math doesn't have this problem, because it is self-contained, it only describes itself and not the world outside its scope.

Yeah, that was what my second sentence is addressing.

[Independent voter]

They say the universe just appeared out of nothing one day.

It's yet another things that points to our living in a simulation, the owners of the simulation too lazy to create evidence for use to "discover" how the universe was really formed.

[Calfredd]

They say the universe just appeared out of nothing one day.

It's yet another things that points to our living in a simulation, the owners of the simulation too lazy to create evidence for use to "discover" how the universe was really formed.

Who is "they" or is this more of your odd ramblings?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

We aren't at the point to really know. We have theories based on what we observe but how we observe is limited and we have observed so little. Anyone that gives you an absolute should be ignored. But the discussion is good though.

[xenogear3]

They say the universe just appeared out of nothing one day.

This may seems a bad answer, but it is actually correct.
It has to start with somewhere.

The theory that it always has something is incorrect.

[Deleted]

A default position put upon the unknown is no stronger of an argument simply for having been stated to default that way. I'm not arguing for belief in fairies; I'm saying that making your claim under the banner of science is just nonsense. There is no science that indicates a secret fairy world or whatever, one way or the other.

One thing that is certain, however, is that if we ever do discover fairies, scientists will study them. =p

I'm a bit set back by your reply. I'm not sure we are in the same page.
Obviously science does not indicate a fairy world, it also doesn't deny it. But it does not recognise it's existance because there is no proof. When thinking about reality we have to go with what is real. We don't go out in the street expecting flying pigs, therefore we conclude they are not real UNTIL proven otherwise. If we don't make this distinction, there is no difference between reality and fantasy.
This default position is paramount. It IS stronger than any fantasy anyone can come up with.

- - - Updated - - -

We cannot find any aliens on other planets.

This means either it is difficult to survive or the universe is not what it seems.

How many planets have you explored? How many do you think we have looked at? And how many do you think there are in the universe?
Oh and remember to tell us how you look that closely into a planet to see if theres life there and also look up how far the nearest star to ours is and try to get an idea of how far that is.

Once you search those numbers you might understand why your post is utter nonsense.

[Deleted]

We are so soon nothing will be. It's a miss conception that there was nothing at the beginning. We are, hence nothing will be.

And maybe possibilities out of existence exist, possibilities as term is quite... undefined.

Or you believe that there is someone who can confirm anything, like some higher being, call it god. That would be the most easiest way to answer everything - you simply can rely on its advocate.

[Ol Scratch]

True Space is infinite in size, and is the true definition of "nothing." It doesn't stretch, it doesn't compress, it doesn't move... it just is.

True Time is equally infinite, and is quite literally nothing but a concept; the order in which events occur. It, too, does not stretch, compress, or alter in any way whatsoever.

Space-Time is neither True Space nor True Time. It just exists in it. And because its its own thing, it's perfectly acceptable that it stretches, compresses, etc. At least relative to a given observer.

Big Bangs likely happen on a relatively regular basis across True Space and True Time. Unfortunately, the distances between them is so vast that its beyond anything any of us can comprehend and at intervals beyond anything any of us can even reasonably imagine. And thanks to the limitations of how fast anything can travel, and how energy eventually dissipates, the chances of us ever witnessing any evidence of another Big Bang is practically as close to zero as one can get. Nevermind the likely fact that most Big Bangs generate as much antimatter as they do matter, and in all likelihood, annihilates themselves before they really even get a chance to form a new Space-Time.

The big problem is that physicists refuse to acknowledge True Space and True Time, and believe (yes, believe) that our particular Space-Time is the end-all be-all there is to the universe.

As for why those Big Bangs occur? It's just a natural part of the universe. It's literally always been and always will be. There is no beginning to True Space or True Time, nor is there any end to them. Individual Space-Times, however, most definitely have a beginning and very likely an end.

Just a duh, common sense explanation for what's going on. The universe likes to stick to the KISS Principle, no matter how much physicists try to overcomplicate things.

The interesting question, however, is: What sparks a Big Bang, and what causes all the resulting matter and antimatter to form in the process? And why, in our particular case, was so much more matter created than antimatter? Luck clearly played a huge role in us ever existing; you just have to look at our planet to realize that fact.

[Deleted]

This may seems a bad answer, but it is actually correct.
It has to start with somewhere.

The theory that it always has something is incorrect.

No, it does not. You are letting your human habits cloud your understanding. The universe may or may not have started. It may have always been and therefore not had a beggining. It looks infinite in scope, it may be infinite in every other scope aswell.
You can't use day to day concepts to understand this. It takes place in a level we aren't equiped to understand unless we think outside the box.

I already said this to another poster, but humans love stories with begginings and ends. We love closure and we hate cliffhanger begginings on endings. This is a weakness we must discard when discussing this topic.

- - - Updated - - -

True Space is infinite in size, and is the true definition of "nothing." It doesn't stretch, it doesn't compress, it doesn't move... it just is.
.

Nothing does not exist. It's a concept invented by us.

Everywhere in the universe there is something in the quantum level. It's therefore never nothing.
The universe has been expanding and still is. So, in fact, it is streching in a way. It folds aswell under extreme gravity. Black holes.
To think of it as still and unmoving is not accurate. Though thinking of it as infinite may be.

[Ol Scratch]

Nothing does not exist. It's a concept invented by us.

Nope, it's the fundamental nature of True Space. Literally everything exists in the nothingness that is True Space.

Everywhere in the universe there is something in the quantum level. It's therefore never nothing.
The universe has been expanding and still is. So, in fact, it is streching in a way. It folds aswell under extreme gravity. Black holes.
To think of it as still and unmoving is incorrect.

Translation: "I can't read or understand what anyone writes."

What you call the universe isn't the universe. It's Space-Time. They're completely separate things. The universe encompasses everything, not just our Space-Time. Space-Time stretches like a bitch. True Space does not. Nor does True Time.

[Deleted]

Nope, it's the fundamental nature of True Space. Literally everything exists in the nothingness that is True Space.
.

Nothing does not exist (as far as we know so far). There is something everywhere in the universe on the quantum level (microscopic if you want). Nothingness is a concept invented by humans. We have NO example of it.

Maybe you mean like the canvas upon everything is? I'm not sure if that is even the case. Because that canvas would be something aswell.

So... you say the universe isn't expanding and you say i don't understand anything? You're gonna have to be more specific than that buddy.
If all you're doing is trying to act higher than thou, we can end this conversation here. You may or may not have better knowledge on the topic, but it doesn't give you the excuse to act the way you are acting. Happy to debate the topic, cba with atitude.

[Deleted]

Lol, so much nonsense in this thread.

OP is just essentially asking about formation of matter in the very early universe, I guess.
Big Bang -> Lots of energy flying around. Density, temperature, both super high -> Universe expands, density decreases, temperature drops
-> energy starts converting to matter, as it can spontaneously do because particle physics -> Gets fuzzy here, read up on baryogenesis if you care all that much, but basically fundamental particles are gonna hit each other and start forming baryonic matter that we know like protons and neutrons, as the universe expands more and cools more they'll start forming larger atoms, molecules etc. Gravity starts to happen. Planets and shit start to form.

tl'dr most of it is known 'cause particle physics but I don't know the specifics because I didn't do an early universe course.
p.s. MMO community in general needs to get better at science.

[Ol Scratch]

Nothing does not exist (as far as we know so far). There is something everywhere in the universe on the quantum level (microscopic if you want). Nothingness is a concept invented by humans. We have NO example of it.

Maybe you mean like the canvas upon everything is? I'm not sure if that is even the case. Because that canvas would be something aswell.

Translation: "Herp a derp derp! I for srs kant reed wat othar peeplez haz ritten!"

You're a perfect example of the type of person I was talking about in my original post: The ignorant physicist (or you, in this case, though I'm sure you'll try to tell everyone you are one; seems to be the go-to move for people like you) who refuses to accept that they're wrong about the universe (the real universe, which again, is NOT Space-Time). Everything you keep vomiting up occurs in Space-Time. Which, again, and do try to pay attention this time, is not the universe nor is it True Space or True Time.

Nothing most definitely exists. It is the "canvas" in which everything happens. And no, giving it a name doesn't make it "something." It makes it "nothing with a name."

So... you say the universe isn't expanding and you say i don't understand anything? You're gonna have to be more specific than that buddy.

No. That is most definitely not what I said. Like, not even remotely. In fact, I specifically went into that, redundantly, because I knew someone like you would come bumbling in and act like a dipshit about it. But good job at proving just how incapable you are of reading what other people write. <thumbs up>

[Deleted]

Read: "I don't know science, I've made stuff up and pass it off as true while berating those who have learnt actual science because I'm an edgelord homeopathy subscriber who likes the books written by dickhead what's-his-name who thinks quantum mechanics proves crystals can heal a loose sphincter."

p.s. true space and true time are not scientific or physical concepts, they're literally made up by some nutter or, more likely, by you and your 13-year-old I-know-best view of the universe.

[Deleted]

Translation: "Herp a derp derp! I for srs kant reed wat othar peeplez haz ritten!"

You're a perfect example of the type of person I was talking about in my original post: The ignorant physicist (or you, in this case, though I'm sure you'll try to tell everyone you are one; seems to be the go-to move for people like you) who refuses to accept that they're wrong about the universe (the real universe, which again, is NOT Space-Time). Everything you keep vomiting up occurs in Space-Time. Which, again, and do try to pay attention this time, is not the universe nor is it True Space or True Time.

Nothing most definitely exists. It is the "canvas" in which everything happens. And no, giving it a name doesn't make it "something." It makes it "nothing with a name."


No. That is most definitely not what I said. Like, not even remotely. In fact, I specifically went into that, redundantly, because I knew someone like you would come bumbling in and act like a dipshit about it. But good job at proving just how incapable you are of reading what other people write. <thumbs up>

You may face the wall till you learn how to talk with other people.

You are talking of things that are not proven, so you are assuming. I did not claim to be a physicist, but i do know something about the topic. Yeah, space time folds, not the universe, sure. As i said, i don't claim to be a physicist, it's natural that i won't be able to explain all things clearly. But the universe is expanding. If you think it isn't best contact the community with your achievement.

Now get your head out of your rear end before you chocke on your own stinky atitude.

[Ol Scratch]

p.s. true space and true time are not scientific or physical concepts, they're literally made up by some nutter or, more likely, by you and your 13-year-old I-know-best view of the universe.

First, don't quote me like that. I didn't say a single word of what you just directly attributed to me.

Second, duh. Again: Learn to read what people write. I addressed this in my first post, too. But again, thanks for proving you're yet another person who can't -- or in this case, refuses -- to read what other people write or keep up with a conversation.

[Deleted]

+Ol Scratch

Yep, basically a big bang can't exist, because this would mean that the space is saturated, ROFL. Those puny humans are so full of sh....

For me, it's my centrist logic , Time is the first to occur because more subtil than Space.

The "concept" of time can exist without Space or a more vulgar State the Mater-ialization.

IMHO, Time is the only one notion, the ultimate Deus, god or whatever... unreachable, unchangeable, The Ultimate Beauty untouched, the Alpha of all beings.